A thought experiment about the Sun vanishing

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a thought experiment concerning the hypothetical scenario of the Sun suddenly disappearing and its implications on gravitational effects and the propagation of light. Participants explore the theoretical consequences of such an event, touching on concepts from Newtonian physics and general relativity, as well as the nature of gravitational interactions over distances.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that if the Sun were to vanish, Earth would tangentially move from its orbit due to the absence of centripetal force, raising questions about the sequence of experiencing gravitational loss versus detecting the last photons emitted from the Sun.
  • Another participant argues that using Newtonian physics to analyze the scenario is inappropriate, as it violates the assumptions of slow changes, and that general relativity also cannot accommodate the sudden disappearance of the Sun due to conservation of energy issues.
  • A participant questions whether a change in position of one mass (m1) would be immediately observed by another mass (m2) placed a light-year away, leading to discussions about the propagation of gravitational effects.
  • Some participants clarify that changes in gravity propagate at the speed of light, which applies to both the Earth-Sun scenario and the m1-m2 scenario.
  • There is mention of gravitational waves and their relation to changes in gravitational fields, with some participants noting that while gravity has always been present, changes propagate at light speed.
  • Humor is introduced regarding the nature of the question and the community's engagement with it, suggesting a light-hearted approach to the speculative nature of the thought experiment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the thought experiment and the applicability of physical laws to the scenario. While some agree on the propagation speed of gravitational changes, there is no consensus on the implications of the Sun vanishing or the feasibility of the scenario itself.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in applying classical physics to extreme hypothetical scenarios and the complexities involved in understanding gravitational interactions over large distances. The assumptions underlying the thought experiment are not universally accepted, leading to varied interpretations.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring theoretical physics, particularly in the context of general relativity, gravitational interactions, and the implications of hypothetical scenarios in astrophysics.

Hamiltonian
Messages
296
Reaction score
193
TL;DR
if the sun vanishes do you experience loss of gravity first or detect the photons emitted by it before vanishing first?
suppose suddenly the sun disappears at a time t. at this arbitrary time t, the Earth should fling off tangentially to the point in its orbit at time t as there is no centripetal force keeping it in orbit.
we know light takes about 8 minutes to reach the earth.
so will humans on Earth experience being flung off out of orbit first of will the detect the last photons emitted from the sun before disappearing at time t.
if the humans on Earth experience the Earth being flung before detecting the photons hasn't information been transferred faster than the speed of light.

is there something fundamentally wrong with this question because I really can't find an answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Using Newtonian physics for this is wrong, because Newtonian physics is a "weak field, everything changes slowly" approximation to general relativity. Something just vanishing violates the "slow change" approximation.

However, general relativity has the local conservation of energy built into its equations. The Sun vanishing violates conservation of energy. So you cannot describe the Sun vanishing in GR either.

So, long story short, as far as we are aware the Sun just vanishing is against the laws of physics we want to use to describe the event. So considering the results of the Sun just vanishing is self-contradictory.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Abhishek11235, etotheipi and vanhees71
Ibix said:
Using Newtonian physics for this is wrong, because Newtonian physics is a "weak field, everything changes slowly" approximation to general relativity. Something just vanishing violates the "slow change" approximation.

However, general relativity has the local conservation of energy built into its equations. The Sun vanishing violates conservation of energy. So you cannot describe the Sun vanishing in GR either.

So, long story short, as far as we are aware the Sun just vanishing is against the laws of physics we want to use to describe the event. So considering the results of the Sun just vanishing is self-contradictory.
ok.
another small clarification.
let's say two masses m1 and m2 are placed a light-year apart. they both exert a gravitational pull on each other suppose the mass m1 is moved by a small amount, will the effect of this change be immediately observed on mass m2?
 
Hamiltonian299792458 said:
ok.
another small clarification.
let's say two masses m1 and m2 are placed a light-year apart. they both exert a gravitational pull on each other suppose the mass m1 is moved by a small amount, will the effect of this change be immediately observed on mass m2?
Exactly what, if any, change there is is not trivial to determine. The problem with casually moving a mass is the conservation of momentum - to move the mass you have to put something in motion in the opposite direction, and that will have a gravitational effect too. However, we can guarantee that the gravitational field at m2 will not change before light from m1 starting to move reaches m2, if that's what you are asking.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Hamiltonian
Hamiltonian299792458 said:
... will the effect of this change be immediately observed on mass m2?
Gravity and light propagate at the speed of light

so that answers both your, Earth - Sun and your M1 - M2 situations
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo
Hamiltonian299792458 said:
is there something fundamentally wrong with this question because I really can't find an answer.
And, did you try just Googling "propagation speed of gravity?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Abhishek11235, sophiecentaur, davenn and 2 others
Hamiltonian299792458 said:
suppose suddenly the sun disappears at a time t. at this arbitrary time t, the Earth should fling off tangentially to the point in its orbit at time t as there is no centripetal force keeping it in orbit.
Or maybe other people just look at you funny and fling you off the Earth when you say you are worried that the Sun keeps disappearing for you... :smile:

https://giphy.com/embed/height=500;id=l1J9NeoLE9gYPi1Xi;type=gif;width=500
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: davenn, Hamiltonian and Evo
davenn said:
Gravity and light propagate at the speed of light
At the risk of being persnickety :wink: , but to steer the OP in the right direction...

Gravity has "always" been everywhere. Changes in gravity propagate at the speed of light.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur, davenn, Ibix and 2 others
Hamiltonian299792458 said:
Summary:: if the sun vanishes do you experience loss of gravity first or detect the photons emitted by it before vanishing first?

is there something fundamentally wrong with this question because I really can't find an answer.
This is not a totally silly question because it is only just unreasonable - being on the fringe of a number of much more reasonable scenarios. If you are just asking about Gravity waves then there is a perfectly good answer (=c). But if you actually want an example of a process that generates them then there are dozens. (But remember it's a very small force to detect). There's nothing much you can do with a spherical object to get gravity waves from it that doesn't involve something else to cause the effect. There will be a changing gravitational field as an object changes its distance from you but the delay, compared with the object's speed would be very very tiny. (Those waves would be more like the tides than the waves on the ocean.)There are other matters, discussed above.

Otoh, an object like a dog bone (or a binary star) will have varying Gravitational Potential, with respect to an observer as it spins from end-on to side-on). You could expect to detect the variations in g field as two stars orbit one another (Much bigger waves for two black holes orbiting) and they would coincide in frequency with the variations of any observed optical magnitude - showing that come from the same place. This link about Ligo is worth reading.
 
  • #10
DaveC426913 said:
Gravity has "always" been everywhere. Changes in gravity propagate at the speed of light.
well if you want to be that picky :wink:

All changes in the EM field ALSO propagate at the speed of light :smile:
 
  • #11
davenn said:
All changes in the EM field ALSO propagate at the speed of light :smile:
As do comments by all us nitpickers here on PF :oldlaugh:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: davenn, DaveC426913 and etotheipi
  • #12
phinds said:
As do comments by all us nitpickers here on PF :oldlaugh:
Those actually move at speeds faster than light, but there is no violation of relativity because they transfer no information.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: davenn, pbuk, DaveC426913 and 8 others
  • #13
The question has been answered scientifically (impossible) and in the sense of the OP (c is top speed for light and gravity). As "what if" questions tend to become humorous, I think we can close this thread.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
8K
  • · Replies 125 ·
5
Replies
125
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K